The Ignorance of Atheism

The Ignorance of AtheismAtheism is the slavish and simple-minded embrace of ignorance. When people call themselves “atheists” today, what they really mean is Christophobes, people with an irrational hatred and fear of Christianity. The arguments they make against Christianity are both bizarre and silly.

Consider first the macabre atheistic position that only stupid people believe in God (i.e., Christianity). Until the latter part of the 19th century, virtually all great scientists were extraordinarily devout Christians. Indeed, the scientific method itself was created by Roger Bacon, a Franciscan friar. Buridan, a priest, perfected the scientific principle of impetus and answered many questions about the revolving of our planet. Ockham created the idea, the heart of modern science, that the most simplified explanation for phenomena ought to be considered the truest.

Science long was exclusively the province of devout Christians, and the greatest scientists, like Newton, Maxwell, and Kelvin, were also profoundly religious individuals whose faith was greater than that of most people of their time. Even through the modern age, important scientists have been Christians.

The contrast with atheism is stark. Until the modern age, there were virtually no atheist scientists worth mentioning. Atheism, instead, proved an obstacle to scientific thought. Most prominent was the wiliness of atheists to lie. Lacking any divine overseer to perceive and punish mendacity, virtually all atheists – Nazis, Soviets, Maoists, fascists and our indigenous atheists – have been willing to lie and to conceal if the subterfuge is deemed in the interest of a greater cause.

An excellent example is the myth that Medieval Christians believed that the Earth is flat. This defamation was created out of whole cloth during the middle of the 19th century by atheists in America and France. The reality, visible to anyone who even browses Medieval history honestly, is that not only did Christians know that the Earth is round, but the objection to Christopher Columbus’s plans revolved around his misconception of the size of the Earth – and Columbus was wrong, and his critics were right.

Another example is Darwinism, the panacea for huge acres of atheism. Two lies are involved in the atheist defense of Christians.

First, the problems initially seen by critics of Darwin almost two centuries ago have grown more valid with time just as Darwinism has grown more dubious over time. This is deliberately suppressed by institutions claiming the mantle of “science” while behaving as ideological cadres. Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is an excellent explanation of this oppression of scientific dissent.

Second, atheists defending Darwinism routinely and maliciously present Intelligent Design as if it were Creationism, which it emphatically is not. Intelligent Design does not deny evolution; rather, the theory proposes that evolution occurs through nuanced divine guidance and not the survival of the fittest, the Darwinian explanation.

Not that Creationism lacks scientific supporters. Lord Kelvin, the creator of the most important law in all science, according to Einstein, as well as all the other Laws of Thermodynamics, was a Creationist. Kelvin was also one of the greatest polymaths in history, vastly more brilliant than modern disciples of Darwin.

Another example is the “persecution of Galileo,” which totally ignores vital aspects of his case.

First, the objections to Galileo involved science just as much as theology. There were important details to his theory that he could not prove, and Galileo did not deny that. The Catholic Church allowed him, therefore, to teach his theory as a theory but not as a fact.

Second, Galileo was never tortured. In fact, he lived in the palace of a cardinal with a personal servant for most of his trial. Not only was Galileo an exceptionally devout Christian, but both of his daughters were nuns. He could have fled to Venice or Istanbul or the Protestant north with ease. He chose to remain within the Catholic Church. Even when he was older and sick, he insisted on being taken to Mass.

The pattern is clear: atheists are Christophobes who irrationally hate and fear Christians (and also religiously serious Jews) because they hate and fear the idea of a divine and perfect judge of our honor and virtue. Atheists are the dead end of scientific inquiry and rigorous speculative theory because of their phobia. They run from truth as they run from God. They are profoundly unserious minds whom no one needs to heed.


  1. This is a good example of the straw man fallacy. I am an atheist and I can see the brilliance of William Lane Craig, intelligence is no sign of belief. Atheism has indeed increased recently as science as pushed God further away. We no longer believe God causes the weather or creates rainbows or causes earthquakes. I am not quite sure of what truth atheists run away from? Is truth just what you say it is, or am I allowed to be sceptical? I don’t hate Christians or Jews or Hindus or believers of any numerous religions. Some of you have my pity, especially if it holds you back from seeing the universe for what it is..Huge, ancient and magnificent.

    • Storms, floods, and earthquakes are indeed a part of the present world. We sometimes call them “natural disasters,” but they are not a surprise to God. Yes, God certainly can control the weather and send deadly storms.

      Some have concluded that suffering occurs because it is beyond God’s control. This is incorrect. God has indeed established certain laws and principles that govern nature, but he remains sovereign over these laws. Psalm 148:8 declares that storms “do his bidding.” Concerning Jonah, it was the Lord who “sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea” (Jonah 1:4 KJV).

      Old Testament writers did not hesitate to attribute the forces of nature to God: “thy waterspouts … thy waves … thy billows” (Psalm 42:7 KJV). Today, God’s creation is too often depersonalized. He is in control, and has His reasons for all kinds of weather, both fair and stormy.

      Furthermore, unlike what you said. . . Christians are not held back from seeing the universe for what you refer to. . . Huge, ancient and magnificent. Matter of fact, Christians (including nearly all scientist) refer to it as the heavens.

  2. James Lucian Meletiou

    This website wrote that thousands of churches a losing every year.
    You did not mention how many new churches are opening each year.

  3. James Lucian Meletiou

    This website wrote that thousands of churches a losing every year. You did not mention how many new churches are opening each year. Amen

  4. ❤️‍ Paula is interested in your profile! More info: ❤️‍


  5. I appreciate your effort but I think you’re slightly misguided in one way (we all have blind spots and are deceived in some ways in this life): You are opposed to Flat Earth, and what I like to do with Christians who seem to be embarrassed about Flat Earth is this: I challenge you to provide me with either:
    1. A Biblical reason for why the Heliocentric (Globe) model is true, of
    2. Any scientific reason for why the Heliocentric (Globe) model is true.

    You’ll find you’re unable to provide a VALID reason for either.

    No need to take my word for #2. Here are quotes from prominent scientists providing reasons for why it is not possible to scientifically verify that the Heliocentric model is true over competing models from Earth’s surface where we live (which means anyone who believes the Heliocentric model is doing so on blind faith in man-made authority, not because of science or the Bible)

    There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun* Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen

    *People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.* Physicist, George F.R. Ellis

    *I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment* Physicist, Albert Einstein

    *So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true…one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest* Physicist, Stephen Hawking

    *The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS (Coordinate System) could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, the sun is at rest and the earth moves, or the sun moves and the earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS*
    – Physicist, Albert Einstein

    “Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…”
    Edwin Hubble

    “In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the sun, planets, and comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the sun…And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.”- Physicist, Isaac Newton

    “…to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked…that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.”- Physicist, Albert Einstein

    “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”- Physicist, Henrick Lorentz

    “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.”- Physicist, Arthur Eddington

    “The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…”- Physicist, Wolfgang Pauli

    “We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation.”- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

    “A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.”- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

    “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.”- Physicist, Albert Michelson

    “The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable…There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.”- Physicist, Bernard Jaffe

    “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”- Historian, Lincoln Barnett

    “Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo…it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves…”- Physicist, Julian B. Barbour

    “Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?”- Physicist, Adolph Baker

    “…The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether…Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.”- Physicist, James Coleman

    “In the effort to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment…the thought was advanced that the Earth might be stationary…Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by revolving around it.”- Physicist, Arthur S. Otis

    I could keep going and fill a novel with such quotes, but hopefully that’s enough to make my point for now.

Leave a Reply to FarSide Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *